IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.03.2025 Mam Chand ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

SDO (OP) Sub Urban, Sub Division, UHBVNL, Jagadhri and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-2080-C-2024 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 587 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 587 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

RSA-564-2024 (O&M)

The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff seeking Permanent Injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is the ‘plaintiff’; and the respondents are the ‘defendants’.

3. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is having agricultural land on which he is also having one tubewell to which the defendants are supplying electricity to the tubewell of the plaintiff through account No. TJ-283. The bore of the tubewell went out of order because of low water level. The plaintiff failed to get it repaired. As such, the plaintiff required shifting of tubewell near the place where the bore was installed at another khewat of the plaintiff. The plaintiff spent a huge money on instalment of new bore. The defendants had assured the plaintiff to give connection at the shifted spot at the earliest in the year 2005. As per the Rules and Regulations, defendants had prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.10,393/- to be deposited by the plaintiff. However later on the defendants had illegally demanded Rs.1,35,370/- instead of Rs.10,393/-. As such, a complaint was filed by the plaintiff under section 12 of the Consumer Act before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagadhri, which directed the defendants to receive the amount of Rs.10,393/- and to get released the connection on the tubewell of the plaintiff. Thereafter, electricity supply was shifted to new bore on 03.02.2009 and plaintiff has been depositing electricity charges. The defendants changed account number of the tubewell of the plaintiff from TJ-283 to TJ-459 unlawfully. Further electric supply to the tubewell of the plaintiff remained unused from 2005 to 03.02.2009. However, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagadhri, dismissed the complaint of the plaintiff vide order dated 24.09.2012. It was averred that the said authority had not invited any evidence and misinterpreted the documents on file wrongly and illegally. The said authority had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendants several times not to disconnect electric connection of the plaintiff in pursuance of order dated 24.09.2012 of the Consumer Forum however, all in vain. Hence, the present suit.

4. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit stating therein that the plaintiff was having tubewell connection No.TJ-283. On 30.6.2005, the plaintiff applied for shifting of the same and the estimate was made for Rs.10,393/-. However, as the plaintiff failed to the deposit the aforesaid estimate amount for a period of 2½ years, then in the meantime, new sales circular came into force according to which new estimate was prepared for Rs.1,35,370/- instead of Rs.10,393/-. A letter dated 09.08.2005 was issued to the plaintiff to fulfil the required formalities of defendants but the plaintiff failed to comply with the said letter. He approached the defendants on 17.03.2008 and aforesaid new estimate was given to him for complian